re: Monkeywrenching airport security
How useful. That'll really, I mean REALLY show 'em who's boss, as they shut the airport down and strand thousands of hapless travelers who I am sure will really understand your idiotic point. Which is ... ? Shit, all it takes is for you to put on some sneakers, run rapidly past the security checkpoint(s), perhaps open an alarmed door on your way out to the tarmac. Do it at a hub, shut down everything. Doesn't take anything as stupidly exotic as powdered explosive in your pantyhose, idiot. >Walk into an airport in baggy pants with powdered expolosives in a leg bag >which can >slowly be dispersed as you walk (perhaps controlled by some sort of >string control >like POWs scattered excavated soil in "The Great Escape"). >After walking around in >the lobby it should soon be tracked to the security >checkpoints and interfere with >any current swab or automated detection methods.
reponse to USA bill (1)
A strategic approach is necessary to accomplish anything in response to the "USA" bill and the upcoming push for a National ID. It will take outreach and education over a long period of time First step is, once more, a red-line version so its obfuscation can be reduced and the real language changes seen and assessed. I'll be starting this ASAP --- anyone interested in taking on portions of the task, or any organization better equipped to manage the task, please contact me at this address. If such a red-line exists, wider distribution of it would be very helpful, and save a lot of work!
Calendar from Egypt: Image of WTC attack for month of Sept.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/27/124953.shtml "A calendar which was printed in Egypt and for the month of September shows a crashing passenger plane with Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty as a backdrop -- and which was printed in May, a full three months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on America -- has caused an uproar in the Dutch town of Almere, Netherlands, the newspaper De Telegraaf reported yesterday."
Larry Ellison: front page biz section: detail plan 4 nat. id.
"This week Ellison offered specifics about his proposal in an interview..." "The new ID's would be voluntary for everyone except immigrants..." "Q: why is a national ID necessary? A: All ... IDs are different and they are easy to counterfeit. My pilot's license ... is cut from a piece of cardboard." "Q: You've offered ... the database software for free. What about maintenance, tech support and upgrades? A: In terms of associated services we have a very wealthy government. I don't think the government has any trouble paying for the labor associated with the software... What's in it for me is the same thing that's in it for you: a safer America." "Q: How do you take this beyond the talking stage? A: I've been back in Washington talking to the FBI, the CIA, ... had lunch with Attorney General Ashcroft...there are meetings planned at the White House..." ...ad nauseum
sample Ellison ID card online
http://www.templetons.com/brad/oracard.html Good for a laff. An interesting irony, according to the site: Ellison's family took their name from Ellis Island immigration center. Larry wants the ID mandatory for immigrants.
re: StreetMail (triangulate this)
I wouldn't make the assumption that there is sufficient public street anonymity. This scheme would fall easily to simple surveillance attacks. Or LEA putting a second receiver in the vicinity. >It has nothing to do with crypto. It just exploits anonymity that (still) exists for >people using public streets.
Re: Expert Warns Coded Pictures Indicate Al Qaeda Planning
Are there any image processing brains out there who can duplicate the results on downf.jpg? Without the filter kernel and other specific techniques known it's impossible to replicate and verify what this guy says, and after the Bert thingie he does to his credibility, well, you know, Trust but Verify. Messing around with the original using my graphics software's built-in filters I don't get anything that looks anything like the results on bringmenews.com. To me it looks doctored.
is there a red-line of PATRIOT bill?
Does anyone have a red-line, change-pages version?
Aimee == FBI?
>It is discouraging to see the disdain in which many of you hold the FBI >during a time when we need cooperation and insight from nontraditional >sources. > "we" --- do you mean "WE ALL need..." or "WE AT THE FBI need..." Or am I behind the curve on this one? You-all may have determined this some time ago, sorry if I missed the posts. >In some cases, maybe FBI agents are an inappropriate vehicle for
re: [texas-hpr] ATF letter (fwd)
BATF planted that post as a troll so then they could peek at the IP of anybody hitting that URL, knowing they came from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], The Club Inferno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [texas-hpr] ATF letter (fwd) > >Not Found >The requested URL was not found on this server. >Please check the filename requested and/or the link that you followed.
ID cards+law history;
The scholarly informed citations are useful and interesting. But haven't we been put on notice that "a rebalancing" is going to occur, "it's a new world" and we will "use every measure at our disposal to combat terrorism" ?? - I fear it is naive to imagine that case law and legal precedent can combat the legislative onslaught to come. > >The power to arrest--or otherwise to prolong a seizure until a suspect had >responded to the satisfaction of the police officers--would undoubtedly >elicit cooperation from a high percentage of even those very few >individuals not sufficiently coerced by a show >of authority, brief physicaldetention, >and a frisk. We have never claimed that expansion of the power of police >officers to act on reasonable suspicion alone, or even less, would further >>no law enforcement interests. See, e.g., Brown v. Texas , 443 U.S. 47, 52, >99 S.Ct. 2637, 2641, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979). But the balance struck by the >Fourth Amendment between the public interest in effective law enforcement >and the equally public interest in safeguarding individual freedom and >>privacy from arbitrary governmental interference forbids such expansion. >See Dunaway v. New York, supra; United States v. >Brignoni-Ponce , 422 U.S., at 878, 95 S.Ct., at 2578-2579. >Detention beyond the limits of Terry without >probable cause would improve the effectiveness of legitimate police >investigations by only a small margin, but it would expose individual >members of the public to exponential increases in both the intrusiveness >of the encounter and the risk that police officers would abuse their >discretion for improper ends. Furthermore, regular expansion >of Terry encounters into more intrusive detentions, without >a clear connection to any specific >underlying crimes, is likely to exacerbate ongoing tensions, where they >exist, between the police and the public. See Report of the National >Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 157-168 (1968). *
more news you can use: Assyrians used LSD WMD
Medical Management Of Biological Casualties Handbook www.nbc-med.org/SiteContent/HomePage/WhatsNew/MedManual/Feb01/handbook.htm
Barcodes, DNA, and you.
Dear Diane & Larry: I thought you'd be interested in this company, who perhaps could donate the technology to complete the tasklist for tagging the citzenry. --- AgInfoLink utilises leading data tracking and transfer technology to record, analyse, report and deliver information. These technologies make the process of data collection easier, faster and more accurate than ever, allowing high-speed and real-time capture of accurate data, and on-time transfer of information among individuals or networks. Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) A Radio Frequency Identifcation Device (RFID) is a device used for electronic identification. An RFID ear tag can be applied to an animal's ear in the same way as a visual ID tag. The RFID contains a microchip with a unique identification number and specialized micro-electronic circuitry (a transponder) for communicating this unique number to an RFID reader. The RFID is called a passive communication device because it does not contain a battery. Rather, it uses electromagnetic energy received from the RFID reader to power the transponder and send a radio signal containing the unique identification number back to the reader. This number can then be fed directly to a computer for recording. RFID technology works in dirty, dusty and moist environments and does not require a direct line-of-sight to work. This means the technology works exceptionally well in livestock and carcase processing environments. Barcodes Barcodes are used extensively in many applications around the world, including on tags and labels. Barcoded eartags are available for individual animal identification. Information is stored in the barcode by making parallel lines with certain thickness and gaps. When a barcode is scanned using a barcode reader, the reader decodes the barcode to reveal it's unique identifying number. The barcode scanner can be linked to a to a computer to record these unique numbers. Genetic (DNA) Traceback Every animal has a unique genetic makeup (it's DNA). Genetic testing to determine an animal's unique DNA profile can be used to trace the identity of meat products back to individual animals for source verification and quality assurance. DNA diagnostics can also be used to determine the parentage of animals to allow sire or pedigree testing and for the selection of livestock with desirable traits. Via strategic partnership, AgInfoLink can offer our clients a number of DNA based processes and services. These products include Gene Marker Technology, for carcase and meat quality, plus DNA services fingerprinting for parentage and traceback. An important part of these service includes DNA sample gathering and storage labels, for both meat/blood samples and for hair samples, plus services to store and analyse these samples. Example 1 Bull Selection. For cattle producers, selection of bulls is critical to introducing or modifying specific traits of progeny. It is not usually achievable to directly link performance of progeny animals and carcases to bulls because of multiple sire mating. Not all performance characteristics of stock and carcases can be attributed to genetics, however, genetics do play a major factor. If producers can be presented data that highlights animals as being exceptionally good or poor performers, it would be very beneficial to be able to know what bulls could belinked, thus enabling replacement bulls to be selected that mirror the bulls linked to exceptionally good progeny. Bulls linked to poor performing progeny would be culled. To achieve the outcome of objectively based bull selection, AgInfoLink offers producers DNA sampling and Storage tools to gather DNA from Bulls at a property level and to gather DNA from progeny at a carcase level. AgInfoLink systems can be used to gather and store! live animal data and carcase data, plus, link the DNA sample numbers for live animals and carcases to eartag numbers carcase ticket numbers. Using AgInfoLink's reporting tools, key performance data can be reported to show exceptional animals (good or bad) and list their DNA sample numbers. Producers can identify progeny of interest. Using the DNA sample numbers stored in the AgInfoLink system, a DNA parentage test can then be undertaken DNA from carcases is then linked to bulls.
Larry Ellison volunteers to donate the S/W for Nat. ID Cards
In the SJ Mercury News this morning: Ellison, (who doesn't think that laws pertaining to other people pertain to him, evidenced by his refusal to obey flight curfew laws regulating takeoffs and landings at SJ Airport) volunteers to donate all the Oracle-ware necessary to deploy National ID cards. For this act of patriotism he naturally gets lots of column inches of aggrandizement. He is quoted in the article as suggesting a card that stores your fingerprint, allowing authentication by a fingreprint reader. "'We're quite willing to provide the software for this absolutely free.'" "But Ellison said in the electronic age little privacy is left anyway" ... " 'This privacy you're concerned about is largely an illusion,' he said. 'All you have to give up is your illusions, not any of your privacy.'" "Howard Gantman, a spokesman for Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif, said that she would be interested in discussing the idea with Ellison." Fuckwits. I'm concerned the possibility of Nat ID cards is a more virulent threat than wiretapping and crypto restrictions. "May I see your papers please?"
Re: Zimmermann\\\'s shameful display...
My god - you've hit on something here! Thank you, I forgot - everyone IS that way on the list. Just more so now. It's kind of like the guys in the inner city, they're always tough -insulting and challenging in in a way that's both threatening and jocular at the same time- on each other and you either have to harden to it and develop the skills for handling that particular kind of repartee and hold your own, or you are shunned from the social group. It's a way of bonding together and excluding "outsiders." No, I'm not new to the list. And I'm not worried about it. But I definitely detect a heightened level of anxiety in the posts. >On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 04:37:36PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Everyone is acting like a bunch of assholes, snotty know-it-alls, > >So you're new to the list? > >-Declan
RE: Zimmermann\'s shameful display...
I am enjoying, in a macabre sense, watching the great Rorschach Test that events have turned out to be, where everyone's own impression of the world is reflected in their interpretations to a much greater degree than usual. Everyone is acting like a bunch of assholes, snotty know-it-alls, children, and infantile technoids. And most of us are ostensibly more on the same side than not. It gives one pause with regard to the behavior between people who DISagree about these and similar kinds of issues. Aimee - is this predicted in your worldview? >Sandy Sandfort said: > >> Spineless "Anonymous" or "lain" or whomever wrote: > >>> Grow a spine, Phil, you jellyfish. > >>a) Anonymous fell for the oldest trick in book, he uncritically >>believed what he read in the newspaper. Missed my forwarded message >>from Phil, did you? > >There are two possibilities. Either Phil is a jellyfish or he's just >a naive self-promoting snake. In either case the best possible >scenario is that Phil is the one who fell for the oldest trick in the >book. He assumed the reporter would simply cater to his overbloated > > > > >And then there's Sandy. Sandy, I have watched you as a supposed >advocate of freedom, libertarian ideals, privacy, anonyminity, >consistently bad mouth about every anonymous poster on this list who >has anything of importance to say. I've seen Declan and Tim doing this even more so, but there are deep issues regarding the clash behind the theory of Reputation Capital and the Cypherpunk mandate that anonymity is an essential component of privacy.
Re: somewhat encouraging...
CNN's 'scrolling text' on The Tube last night mentioned "hundreds of campuses" but wasn't more specific. The mainstream news won't have it till some shit hits the fan, but there's plenty if you dig just a bit. >From the decidedly non-mainstream - BAY AREA: - THU: Meeting of activists to plan and mobilize for a Sept 29th rally Capp Street Center, 362 Capp Street, San Francisco FRI: Social Justice Center of Marin Peace Vigil Third & Irwin Streets, San Rafael Sacramento Peace Vigil and protest against appearance of Henry Kissinger Memorial Auditorium, 16th & "J" Street, Sacramento SUN: Peace Gathering Peri Park in Fairfax (across from 85 Bolinas Road) www.askpeace.com TUE: Sacramento Peace Vigil Memorial Auditorium, 16th & "J" Street On the day the US begins military action, there will be a protest rally at Powell and Market Street in San Francisco at 5 pm...If the war starts later in the evening, the protest will be held the next day at 5 pm. the day after the Powell and Market protest, there will be a Berkeley BART alert at the downtown Berkeley BART station at 5 pm. www.craigslist.org (Craig's List) has an updated listing of events around the Bay Area BOSTON AREA: Upcoming Events for Peace (Cambridge Peace Commission and Boston Mobilization) Tuesday September 18, Noon Vigil at the JFK building, government center, messages to Senators and Congress - no more victims, no money for militarism or retaliation (A small group from this vigil will go to the offices of Senators Kerry and Kennedy with the message of peace. If you want to be part of this, call CPPAX). Wednesday, September 19, 6-7pm: Vigil for Peace, 7-9pm: Community-wide organizing meeting (place TBA, near Copley Sq). Sunday, September 23, 12:30-2PM "STANDING AGAINST THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE" time for mourning, call for peace vigil/gathering copley square plaza. Organized by representatives from: American Friends Service Committee, American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights, Cambridge Peace Commission, CPPAX, Boston Mobilization for Survival, Women's Action for New Directions, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, World Federalists of New England For latest information, call AFSC at 617-661-6130. Call 617-782-2313 to help. >>To: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: somewhat encouraging... >>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >At 10:27 PM -0400 9/20/01, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>I suspect that only at MIT, and certain places in the east bay in California, >>are where you'll find peace marches right now. I read a lot of mainstream >>news, and haven't come across much coverage of them... >> >>-Declan > >The only other place I'm aware of is in Austin. > >Regards, Matt-
Subject: Re: kuro5hin.org || Combating Terrorism Act of 2001 - Analyzed
Actually I found the analysis more ... mature in outlook. Less Wired. Some stuff to agree with, some to disagree with. Declan, did you read it? >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: kuro5hin.org || Combating Terrorism Act of 2001 - Analyzed > >Relying on kuro5hin for political and legislative analysis is like relying >on the broadcast networks for in-depth reporting. > >-Declan > > >On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 07:57:55PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >> http://www.Kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/17/22230/2697 >> --
news you can use: EFF CALL TO ACTION
(In the interest of self-consistency note that this also includes the "warrantless wiretapping" and "emergency powers for computer crimes" concerns which I don't think have been argued persuasively enough or with enough weight to overcome the proposal and which I don't think constitute the worst threats. But there's more here of much value.) FYI: Electronic Frontier Foundation ACTION ALERT (Issued: Monday, September 17, 2001 / Deadline: Friday, September 21, 2001) Introduction: San Francisco, California - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today urged governmental officials to act deliberately in the coming days and to approve only measures that are effective in preventing terrorism while protecting the freedoms of Americans. Your urgent action is needed TODAY. In a press conference earlier today, Attorney General John Ashcroft indicated that he would be asking Congress to expand the ability of law enforcement officers to perform wiretaps in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Ashcroft asked Congress to pass anti-terrorism legislation including "expanded electronic surveillance" by the end of this week. Ashcroft's comments come in the wake of the Senate's hasty passage of the "Combating Terrorism Act" on the evening of September 13 with less than 30 minutes of consideration on the Senate floor. EFF believes this broad legislation would result in unintended negative consequences for civil liberties of law-abiding citizens by making it unnecessary for law enforcement officers to obtain a court wiretap order before requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to release e-mail message header information and Internet browsing patterns of their subscribers. The bill would also authorize local U.S. attorneys to authorize certain surveillance orders. The Combating Terrorism Act is presently a Senate-passed amendment to a House appropriations bill. It is expected to be voted on in joint conference committee this week, or early next week at the latest. The House has already passed the "base" bill, while the Senate has passed it plus the wiretapping amendment. The House delegates several Representatives to meet with several Senators, who will collectively decide what amendments the final, joint version will include. This final version is then voted on by the full House and Senate. This only real pressure point is the conference committee; whatever emerges will almost certainly pass both houses near-unanimously. What YOU Can Do Now: * Contact the conference committee members and your legislators about this issue AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Call them, and fax and/or email the EFF letter below today. Postal mail will be too slow on this issue. Feel free to use this letter verbatim, or modify it as you wish. Let them know that you do not believe liberty must be sacrificed for security. Please be polite and concise, but firm. For information on how to contact your legislators and other government officials, see EFF's "Contacting Congress and Other Policymakers" guide at: http://www.eff.org/congress.html * Join EFF! For membership information see: http://www.eff.org/support/ Sample Letters: There are two sample letters below, one to the conference committee members, and one to your own legislators. Use this sample letter below to conference committee members or modify it, and send to all of the following: Representatives: To be determined; conferees not publicly announced yet. Check the web-posted version of this alert for an update tomorrow: http://www.eff.org/alerts/20010917_eff_wiretap_alert.html Senators: Name (State), Phone (202-224-), Fax (202-224-), Email Patrick Leahy (VT), 4242, 3479, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ernest Hollings (SC), 6121, 4293, none Daniel Inouye (HI), 3934, 6747, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Barbara Mikulski (MD), 4654, 8858, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Herb Kohl (WI), 5653, 9787, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Patty Murray (WA), 2621, 0238, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jack Reed (RI), 4642, 4680, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Byrd (WV), 3954, 0002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judd Gregg (NH), 3324, 4952, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ted Stevens (AK), 3004, 2354, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pete Domenici (NM), 6621, none, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitch McConnell (KY), 2541, 2499, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kay Hutchison (TX), 5922, 0776, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Campbell (CO), 5852, 1933, none Thad Cochran (MS), 5054, 9450, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Sen./Rep. [Surname] and Other H.R. 2500 Conference Committee Members: I write to express my gravest concern over aspects of the Congressional response to the tragedies of September 11. While I share your grief and anger in no uncertain terms, I do not believe that sacrificing essential liberties in a vain hope of improving security is good for America or the world. Security can be improved without privacy invasion, and we cannot win an attack on freedom by attacking that freedom ourselves. I specifically object to H.R. 2500 amendment S.A. 1562 sections 816, 832, 833, and 834, and any s
dismisinformation
first On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Eugene Leitl wrote: > > "According to intelligence officials, bin Laden is aware that the > >United States can eavesdrop on his international communications but he > >does not seem to care. To impress cleared visitors, NSA analysts > >occasionally play audiotapes of bin Laden talking to his mother over an > >INMARSAT connection." > >http://www.it.mycareer.com.au/news/2001/09/18/FFXBHD3OLRC.html Then DCF writes: >BTW, the perps used their real names and IDs and Osama doesn't even use a >telephone. He communicates using couriers from his family's clan. > >DC Obviously these statements are not equally true.
deconstructing legislation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- - - Original Message - >On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 03:06:59PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> The wired-generation issue is that we don't need glib knowitall >half-information or reporting that's packaged just like an SUV ad >except it's for the socalled digiscenti. The issue is that we need >the best information that we can get and Declan's superficial >reportage of the Congressional debate does NOT fulfill the need. > >Fool. "Doesn't take criticism well." I linked to the transcript and posted the text of the bill myself. >I offered in-depth coverage. Compare and contrast to wire coverage of >the same legislation to achieve enlightenment. Is this where you set the bar when lives are on on the line? You post a link, post some text and then proclaim the sky is falling, or this thing or another thing, without analysis? My point is you have to do better. "Doesn't perform according to his potential." Never mind I'll do it myself. > >-Declan > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Hush 2.0 wl0EARECAB0FAjulXccWHGNpdGl6ZW5xQGh1c2htYWlsLmNvbQAKCRDXa6sbPNqxenjU AKCs4vA+5hO1umSZnobSvs5U4SRODgCeNWLHwNSgNBH4UK6fwK+/gLqqbLU= =9cAj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: US on the move
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Yes, this is intelligent. 1) where? 2) when? O yes, big threat. Like the Afghani's can't see the dust of fucking tanks already. Did anyone say civil liberties? Assholes like you pose the greatest threat. Go give someone some escrowed crypto keys and fuck yourself. - - Original Message - >citizenq[ueer]@hushmail.com babbled: > >C-130s or equivalent passing > >Loose lips sink ships, and et cetera. > >Shut the fuck up. > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Hush 2.0 wl0EARECAB0FAjulOFgWHGNpdGl6ZW5xQGh1c2htYWlsLmNvbQAKCRDXa6sbPNqxeg/d AKCjihdCNHTrrDMjYYZs+vK9a3F3tgCgiG932uqiPDoni7kpNXp02iywNkM= =6Bw7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
No Subject
You missed the irony, I guess I should have put in the irony-smiley. Given the overall context of the bill, the debate on the floor, and it's conclusion your report is shrill and Chicken-littleish, which does nothing for creating credible support of resistance to eroding civil liberty. Do your job, support your position, and do it clearly. Right now I have no patience for Wired-generation smugness. >On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 04:11:53PM -0700, citizenQ wrote: > Please >indicate the wider circumstances, particularly the warrantless >>circumstances, that this amendment allows cybertapping under, for >those of us without your time or acumen in editing the existing Title >III language. > >To achieve enlightement, you must consider how this bill amends existing >wiretap law. This will take some time, it is true, but it is The Path. > >-Declan
resend: re: Senate votes to permit warrantless Net-wiretaps
Reading the discussion I see that the amendment calls for inclusion of 'terrorist activies' into Title III which allows wiretapping under Court order, not anything about warrantless wiretapping. I did not perform all the text substitutions of the amemdment itself though. However in the language of the amendment all references that I read are to activities under court order. Please indicate the wider circumstances, particularly the warrantless circumstances, that this amendment allows cybertapping under, for those of us without your time or acumen in editing the existing Title III language. You also did not quote this: "One of the most effective investigative tools at the disposal of law enforcement agencies is the ability to go to a Federal judge and get wiretapping authority. It is critical in matters such as this. That is the ability to intercept oral or electronic conversations involving the subject of a criminal investigation. The legislative scheme that provides this authority, and at the same time protects the individual liberties of American citizens to be secure against unwarranted government surveillance, is referred to in the criminal code as Title III. Among the many protections inherent in Title III is that only the investigations of certain criminal offenses, those judged to be sufficiently serious to warrant the use of this potent crime-fighting weapon, are eligible for wiretapping orders. The law lays out a number of crimes deemed by Congress to be serious enough to warrant allowing the FBI to intercept electronic and oral communications. Title III currently allows interception of communications in connection with the investigation of such crimes as mail fraud, wire fraud, and the interstate transportation of stolen property. Inexplicably, however, the Federal terrorism statutes are not currently included in Title III. I have been complaining about this for a long time and this is the time to correct it." >>Text of the Hatch-Feinstein "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001": >http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cta.091401.html > >Discussion of the amendment: >http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/s091301.html > >-Declan >> > > >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46852,00.html > >Senate OKs FBI Net Spying >By Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >12:55 p.m. Sep. 14, 2001 PDT > >WASHINGTON -- FBI agents soon may be able to spy on Internet users >legally without a court order. > >On Thursday evening, two days after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. >>history, the Senate approved the "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001," >which enhances police wiretap powers and permits monitoring in more >situations. > >The measure, proposed by Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Dianne Feinstein >(D-California), says any U.S. attorney or state attorney general can >order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system. >Previously, there were stiffer restrictions on Carnivore and other >Internet surveillance techniques. > >Its bipartisan sponsors argue that such laws are necessary to thwart >terrorism. "It is essential that we give our law enforcement >authorities every possible tool to search out and bring to justice >those individuals who have brought such indiscriminate death into our >backyard," Hatch said during the debate on the Senate floor. > [...]
No Subject
Reading the discussion I see that the amendment calls for inclusion of 'terrorist activies' into Title III which allows wiretapping under Court order, not anything about warrantless wiretapping. I did not perform all the text substitutions of the amemdment itself though. However in the language of the amendment all references that I read are to activities under court order. Please indicate the wider circumstances, particularly the warrantless circumstances, that this amendment allows cybertapping under, for those of us without your time or acumen in editing the existing Title III language. You also did not quote this: "One of the most effective investigative tools at the disposal of law enforcement agencies is the ability to go to a Federal judge and get wiretapping authority. It is critical in matters such as this. That is the ability to intercept oral or electronic conversations involving the subject of a criminal investigation. The legislative scheme that provides this authority, and at the same time protects the individual liberties of American citizens to be secure against unwarranted government surveillance, is referred to in the criminal code as Title III. Among the many protections inherent in Title III is that only the investigations of certain criminal offenses, those judged to be sufficiently serious to warrant the use of this potent crime-fighting weapon, are eligible for wiretapping orders. The law lays out a number of crimes deemed by Congress to be serious enough to warrant allowing the FBI to intercept electronic and oral communications. Title III currently allows interception of communications in connection with the investigation of such crimes as mail fraud, wire fraud, and the interstate transportation of stolen property. Inexplicably, however, the Federal terrorism statutes are not currently included in Title III. I have been complaining about this for a long time and this is the time to correct it." >>Text of the Hatch-Feinstein "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001": >http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cta.091401.html > >Discussion of the amendment: >http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/s091301.html > >-Declan >> > > >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46852,00.html > >Senate OKs FBI Net Spying >By Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >12:55 p.m. Sep. 14, 2001 PDT > >WASHINGTON -- FBI agents soon may be able to spy on Internet users >legally without a court order. > >On Thursday evening, two days after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. >>history, the Senate approved the "Combating Terrorism Act of 2001," >which enhances police wiretap powers and permits monitoring in more >situations. > >The measure, proposed by Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Dianne Feinstein >(D-California), says any U.S. attorney or state attorney general can >order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system. >Previously, there were stiffer restrictions on Carnivore and other >Internet surveillance techniques. > >Its bipartisan sponsors argue that such laws are necessary to thwart >terrorism. "It is essential that we give our law enforcement >authorities every possible tool to search out and bring to justice >those individuals who have brought such indiscriminate death into our >backyard," Hatch said during the debate on the Senate floor. > [...]
British cyberpolice ask providers to retain all data after terrorist attacks in the United States
LONDON (AP) -- British authorities have asked all phone companies and Internet service providers to preserve communications data stored Tuesday in case they contain important clues to the identity of the terrorists who attacked Washington and New York. The National High-Tech Crime Unit, set up earlier this year to fight crime related to information technology, said data stored Tuesday may hold vital evidence about those responsible for the devastating attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. ``By working swiftly to contact the communications service providers in the U.K., I hope that we will be able to offer valuable assistance to U.S. authorities in investigating the appalling events of recent days,'' said Detective Chief Superintendent Len Hynds, head of the London-based unit. The unprecedented request was made under Britain's Data Protection Act, which normally prohibits companies from keeping such data any longer than is needed for billing purposes. A spokeswoman for the crime unit said the request was merely precautionary, to ensure that important data recorded on the day of the attacks, such as text messages, e-mails and voice messages, were not destroyed. ``We are not looking for anything in particular,'' said the spokeswoman, speaking on condition of anonymity. ``Communications are routinely destroyed after 48 hours. This safeguarding of communications data is to ensure that any potential data is saved should it be required for evidential purposes.'' Saved information could be accessed only by law enforcement agencies, if specific legal authority were granted, the spokeswoman said. The move falls short of steps taken in the United States by the FBI, which is serving search warrants to major Internet service providers to obtain information about an e-mail address believed to be connected to Tuesday's terrorist attacks. Hynds said the cooperation of the telecommunications and Internet industry in Britain was voluntary. ``The decision for industry to assist us is entirely at their discretion and we will not therefore be asking for confirmation of support.'' -- http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/tech/029760.htm posted under fair use law as educational material. ) 2001 KnightRidder.com
re: Sick Wacko in the Whitehouse
You were NOT paying close enough attention during the election. "We" did not allow this sub-normal to become president. The Republican machine saw to it, unable to be thwarted by the Democratic machine. Neither of which have anything to do with "us." Our only hope is that his is an "assisted living" situation, surrounded by enough possibly more intelligent and experienced men and women to prevent the most heinous missteps. Hopefully the posturing that everyone is "shoulder to shoulder" and "fully behind" the President is only because that's what has to be said to keep the sheeple quiet, and not because that's what the huge and intentionally ponderous US Government machine really thinks. > How did you people ever allow this delusional sub-normal wacko >to become your leader? For those of us old enough to remember, >he sounds more and more like Adolf Hitler. >God help us all.
G. Bush Sr., Gephardt on shift in privacy balance
VIA CNN this AM: (somewhat paraphrasing) Bush Sr., speaking to some corporate collection of cronies: "We'll also have to look at this Internet thing you all know so much about, and review our policies..." Gephardt: "We don't have to, we don't want to change the Constitution, but there will need to be a shift in the balance between freedom and security..." The planes have hit the towers but the shit has yet to hit the fan.
